Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil - Study Notes

Timothy Mitchell

After WWI, Britain faced challenges in retaining control over territories like Mesopotamia (Iraq), due to the collapse of the Ottoman authority.
Despite local movements for independence, British forces remained in Iraq for approximately forty years, facilitating oil control with American and French firms.

Key Processes for Sustaining Control:
- First, oil firms focused on restricting oil supply, thereby stifling the development of local political movements that could challenge imperial authority.
- Second, the British and French adopted a mandate system to justify their control, framing it as a 'dual mandate' emphasizing both civilization and strategic economic interests of Western powers.

Self-determination vs. Control:
- The dual mandate was characterized by claims of civilizing 'native' populations while simultaneously prioritizing Western economic interests, particularly in oil.
- Example: In Iraq, local self-determination was manipulated to support economic interests, described by Lord Milner as ruling 'subject races through their chiefs'.

Military Presence: Britain had over a million troops in the Middle East, which proved insufficient to control the territories amidst rising popular opposition.
Syria's Independence Movement (1920): Local committees declared independence, leading to resistance against French forces.
Palestinian Resistance: Demonstrations against British support for Zionism began following the declaration of independence in Syria.
Egyptian Revolution of 1919: Major uprisings showcasing demands for independence, during which strikes and sabotage activities emerged.
Iraq's Nationalist Movement: Events in nearby Iran and the rising Iraqi nationalism led to the 1920 Revolution against British rule; a lengthy resistance that was costly for Britain.

British officials were concerned about a potential shift toward genuine self-determination as represented by the Wilsonian ideals, which could destabilize imperial interests.
Focus was on establishing a controlled governance structure that would produce consent for British rule, amid popular resistance.
The objective was to maintain indirect control through the support of local elites while suppressing wider nationalist movements.

Creation of a ‘Native Ruler’: After initial resistance in Iraq and recognition of local governance systems, Britain decided to establish a native Emir, leading to the selection of Emir Faisal.
Local administrations were co-opted to retain British interests while performing the facade of governance under local customs.
This approach was expected to mitigate domestic pressure within Britain regarding expensive colonial commitments.

Financial Constraints on Empire: Britain's control was also challenged by internal demands for economic reform and the high costs associated with maintaining military presence abroad.
Labour critics in Britain intensified scrutiny on military expenditures related to imperial control, leading to calls for greater accountability regarding expenditures on colonies.

Postwar agreements between Britain and France led to a division of Arab territories into mandates, with further control over oil resources formalized through treaties.
Anglo-Persian Oil and Shell established dominance over Iraqi oil despite local resistance; complicated by American oil interests seeking to undermine British agreements.

The resistance movements in Iraq were further complicated by American corporate interests, particularly Standard Oil's maneuvering against British control in Iraq.
The emergence and entrenchment of oil interests led to further manipulations of local governance which sought to ensure consistent British access to oil resources.

The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) faced delays in oil production despite massive reserves; industry practices often led to minimal production to maintain monopoly profits.
Development also included constructing crucial infrastructure, such as pipelines to facilitate oil extraction and shipment, highlighting the intertwining of economic and political influences.

The principles of self-determination were appropriated by imperial powers to create structures that served their interests while appearing to accommodate local demands.
The management of oil resources and local governance became intrinsically linked in maintaining imperial dominance, effectively stifling the authentic self-determination of the nations involved.